IRO, monotonicity

[Mike Ositoff]

> 
> On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Mike Ositoff wrote:
> 
> > > Ouch. Do you think there would be more of an advantage to this list if we
> > > had some journal-style arm which would incorporate whole articles and be
> > > committee-mediated? I'm not casting aspersions upon current postings'
> > 
> > It wouldn't be open discussion then. Open discussion is the
> > advantage that these lists have over the academic journals
> 
> Open discussion could still occur on the list- but there would be huge
> advantage to having an organised source of information and discussion
> about voting systems, member's interests and current arguments, that would
> augment the current "list system" (outrageously stupid electoral systems
> pun).

But don't web sites serve that purpose?
There's been some discussion of a list FAQ, but it would probably
have to consist of everyone's separate conflicting statements.

> 
> > > objectivity or scientific nous; I'm just finding it very difficult to
> > > handle what are often discontinuous arguments and it would be appreciated
> > 
> > My arguments have been discontinuous because my shell-account
> > e-mail is, on some evenings, repeatedly & often disrupted by
> > line-noise, making it necessary, on those evenings, to keep
> > my messages very short, because otherwise I won't finish
> > before the noise freezes the keyboard.
> 
> I'm cool with Mike's short messages- it's just that the current format for
> debate on the list is as such- #1:"Blah?" #2:"Blah!" #1:"Blah.Blah!Blah!!"
> #3: "BLAH!!!" It would help if we went into more detail than we thought
> was necessary to intimidate the other side.

I sometimes leave details out for brevity. Web articles
are where there'd be more room for detail. Your debate format
seems like a question followed by an emphatic answer, followed
by 2 other people's emphatic comments. What's wrong with that?


> 
> > 
> > > if there was some extensive and well-argued investigation of each members'
> > > interests and research. The "election-methods-journal" might be a group
> > 
> > Of course it's a good thing if people presenting arguments or
> > making claims or proposals explain their interests & goals.
> > 
> > Research, I don't know. This isn't science. My conversations with
> > other voters are research, and it has led me to want to get
> > rid of the LO2E problem that all progressives are dominated
> > & driven by. That's my interest in single-winner reform.
> 
> It is science, and we have to take a very scientific approach to many of
> its aspects. Even if it doesn't define itself as "science" in the
> stamp-collecting science manner, we still have to take a civil approach,
> and a productive one.

Maybe my comments about academic authors on voting systems 
is what you didn't like. But I made clear my justification of
the statements. Unscientific? Didn't I use the correct scientific
word for the place where most voting system authors have their
heads securely positioned?

Mike Ossipoff


> 
>